- (1) Where any person is to work at a place from which he will be liable to fall either a distance of more than six feet or in such circumstances as to render a fall of less than six feet specially dangerous, then an effective safety device shall be provided either to prevent the fall of any such person or to afford protection from injury to any such person falling.
- (2) Subsection (2) of section twenty-six of the Factories Act, 1937, is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Piratin.]
§ Brought up and read the First time.
§ Mr. PiratinI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the last of my series of new Clauses. The purpose of this Clause is to ensure greater safety for the workers employed at heights. Section 26 (2) of the principal Act provides that if a worker is liable to fall 10 feet from the place where he is working, and if there is insecure foothold, means should be provided
so far as is reasonably practicable … for ensuring his safety.That may seem adequate and reasonable, but the Clause with which I am dealing 778 goes further because it reduces the height from 10 feet to six feet or less—and this is important—if the fall would be specially dangerous, because it is not always a matter of height. If one is young and agile and one falls from a height of 10 feet on to something soft one does not necessarily hurt one's self, but if one falls five feet, perhaps on to a steel girder or even into some unpleasant liquid one can do more harm than might be sustained by a fall of 10 feet in other circumstances, The provision of the Act, as it stands, is rather arbitrary. I have put forward this provision in addition to the reduction to six feet.The Clause further provides for an effective safety device:
either to prevent the fall … or to afford protection from injury …As I understand Section 26 (2) of the principal Act it is intended to protect workers employed erecting steel and others who are working on roofs. In the last few years there has been a great extension of the use of asbestos and there have been a large number of cases in which people walking on those asbestos roofs have fallen through. One cannot always tell that it is asbestos because it may be coloured to look like wood or some other substantial substance. It is also the case that many workers walk along gutters. This is common practice and is regarded as what is known as inevitable risk.We want to clear up these matters, and that is the purpose of this Clause. Some of the safeguards we have in mind, and which the Minister's advisers could work out in better detail, include scaffolding, duckboards, duckladders, safety belts, safety rails and nets. I ask the Minister to accept this new Clause because its purpose is to strengthen Section 26 of the principal Act by bringing it up to date in the light of greater experience and to provide for a number of difficulties which experience since 1937 has shown to exist.
§ Mr. IsaacsI am sorry that I cannot accept this new Clause, but I can go a little further this time than I have been able to do with the others which the hon. Member has brought forward. I am quite prepared to look at the possibility or necessity of reducing the figure of 10 feet. But the other provisions of the Clause are vague and would give rise to a good deal 779 of difficulty. If we were to accept the words,
in such circumstances as to render a fall of less than six feet specially dangerous, …I can see our lawyer friends having a lovely time arguing whether in view of the fact that the surface was hard the distance should have been less than six feet. The new Clause ignores our present regulations relating to secure foothold and if necessary secure hand-hold. If we adopted this new Clause it would reduce the height laid down in Section 26 (2) of the Act in the case of everybody, not only roof workers. We are bound to take care of roof workers and new building regulations under the Factories Act are either being drafted or—I am not sure of this—they have been drafted and are under consideration. I undertake to look at the point I have mentioned before the Report stage and see if we can make out a reasonable case for reducing the height of 10 feet.
§ Mr. SolleyI for one am very pleased at my right hon. Friend's statement that he will look into this matter. By a coincidence I was discussing this point yesterday with a solicitor who probably has one of the largest trade union practices in this country. I will not mention his name, as he has no desire for publicity, but he is probably as well known to my right hon. Friend as he is to most trade unionists in this country. He was saying that there are a large number of cases in which workmen fall from a height of less than 10 feet, possibly on to a concrete floor, sustaining serious injuries frequently resulting in death, yet the bringing of a case under the Factories Act is debarred by virtue of the provision that the fall must take place from a height of not less than 10 feet, assuming that there is no other breach of any other regulation and no negligence at common law. I would urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance of this matter from the point of view of workmen, and I hope that he will see his way clear to modify the provisions in the Factories Acts dealing with this point.
§ 2.30 p.m.
§ Mr. PagetI would add a word with regard to falls in circumstances of exceptional danger. I do not know that, in this sort of provision, vagueness is not a virtue. Where people are working 780 opposite vats of acid and things of that kind, or where they are working in positions of peculiar danger, this sort of provision ought to be made. It has become a very difficult matter indeed for the factory inspector, and for my right hon. Friend's Department to draw up the necessary regulations which, in general terms, will cover the exceptional case. It is very much less difficult for the industrial insurance agent. In this sort of case where an employer wishes to insure and cover his risk, the representative of the insurance company can decide if he is likely to be involved in litigation owing to a fall in these circumstances. It is the insurance company who would expect precautions to be taken, and therefore for the factory inspector we are bringing in a new ally who does not have to bind himself by any rigid rules. He has to consider the risk he will have to pay for. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not reject this proposal simply because it is vague. Under this Act, particularly with regard to the provisions for secure fencing of dangerous machinery, every bit of which is intensely vague, the insurance company rules have supplemented the factory rules, and have done a very useful job indeed.
§ Mr. PiratinI do not wish to press the point. I was hoping that the Minister would respond to the request of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). But if he will look at the matter, even from a wider point of view than he has indicated, I would ask leave to withdraw.
§ Mr. IsaacsI will undertake to look at the whole question.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, with drawn.